News

Colorado Court of Appeals Releases Decision on How to Calculate Statutes of Limitations

A statue of limitations is a law that provides the maximum time after an event when legal proceedings may be initiated. For example, generally under Colorado law, a tort action must be brought within two years after the claim has accrued.… [Read More]

In Wolfe v. Jim Hutton Educational Foundation, the Colorado Supreme Court was asked to interpret the water rights abandonment statute, which provides, “failure for a period of ten years or more to apply to a beneficial use the water available under a water right .… [Read More]

US Supreme Court Issues Decision in Interstate Water Dispute

On February 24, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, a case involving a decades-old water dispute over the Republican River. Click here for background history on the case.

The Court concluded that Nebraska knowingly failed to comply with a 2002 settlement of a previous lawsuit between the states that established a mechanism to measure water use and promote compliance with the Republican River Compact.… [Read More]

CO Supreme Court Addresses When Requantification of Historic Consumptive Use is Required

In Wolf v. Sedalia Water and Sanitation District, the CO Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the historic consumptive use (HCU) of a water right had to be requantified before inclusion in an existing augmentation plan when the HCU had already been determined in a previous case.… [Read More]

In LR Smith Investments, LLC v. Butler, the Colorado Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a trial court decision finding that two prescriptive easements existed. In Colorado, a party acquires a prescriptive easement when the prescriptive use is (1) open and notorious; (2) continuous without effective interruption for at least 18 years; and (3) either adverse or pursuant to an attempted but ineffective grant.… [Read More]

CO Supreme Court Clarifies Use of Historical Consumptive Use Analysis in Change of Water Right Case

In Widefiled Water and Sanitation District v. Witte, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed the proper use of historical consumptive use (HCU) analysis in a proceeding to change a water right. An HCU analysis determines the amount of water that has been put to beneficial use, and thus, the amount of water that may properly be subject to a change.… [Read More]

Anticipated Colorado Water Legislation for 2015

The Legislature’s regular session convenes on January 7, 2015 and is scheduled to adjourn on May 6, 2015. The Water Resource Review Committee (WRRC) approved for introduction various pieces of legislation dealing with water law and resources. The WRRC is charged with contributing to and monitoring the conservation, use, development, and financing of Colorado’s water resources for the general welfare of the state.… [Read More]

10th Circuit to Review Constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act

CO Supreme Court Clarifies an Important Negligence Standard

In Chapman v. Harner, the state Supreme Court finally resolved the long-standing question of what is the proper allocation of the burden of proof under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur, which in Latin means “the thing speaks for itself,” is a common-law evidentiary rule that, if applicable, creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent and does not require the plaintiff to show any direct evidence of the defendant’s behavior.… [Read More]

CO Supreme Court Concludes that a Forum Selection Clause Does Not Divest Colorado Courts of Jurisdiction

A forum selection clause contains a contractual agreement between private parties that provides where the parties will bring any litigation related to the contract. In In re Nickerson v. Network Solutions, LLC, the state Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a forum selection clause stating that Virginia courts have “exclusive jurisdiction” over any dispute under the contract deprives a Colorado court of jurisdiction over a dispute.… [Read More]

IMPORTANT: Visiting this website, sending an email through this website, or submitting a message through this
website does not create an attorney-client relationship with Beattie, Chadwick & Houpt, LLP or its attorneys
and does not prevent Beattie, Chadwick & Houpt, LLP or its attorneys from representing an adverse party.
Until representation is established through a client engagement letter, we cannot guarantee that information
submitted to Beattie, Chadwick & Houpt, LLP or its attorneys through this website will be maintained as
confidential or privileged. Finally, nothing on this website constitutes legal advice. Thank you.